All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
Only a handful of prestigious journals dominate the world of scholarly publishing. But only those who can afford to pay hefty subscription fees can gain access to research published in these journals.
That may soon change.
A new journal will challenge publishing behemoths such as Science, Nature and Cell by offering free access to research articles immediately upon publication on the Web.
BioMed Central is launching the Journal of Biology, the apex of a pyramid of new journals that will offer authors an alternative to commercial publishers.
"I believe that the Journal of Biology (and other journals like it) will be able to compete with these journals because scientists recognize that open access is not just an esoteric matter of fairness, it is about maximizing the impact of their research," said Michael Eisen, one of the leaders of the Public Library of Science.
But competition is not the major goal, said Theo Bloom, editor of the Journal of Biology. Instead, the journal "sets out to prove that high-level science has a place in open access journals."
The first print issues of JBiol will be sent to 80,000 biological scientists in June free of charge, giving it the highest circulation of any life science research journal.
Each paper will be published online immediately in preliminary format, and in final form within two weeks in order to speed up peer review and reduce the time between submission and publication.
Peer review will be fast, fair and efficient, editors say. Authors will retain the copyright for their articles so they will be free to distribute their work electronically or after it has been printed.
"By making research accessible to all on the day it is published, it allows progress in science to be faster and more efficient so that everyone who needs this information has free access to it as fast as possible," Bloom said.
The launch of these new journals follows an open letter by the Public Library of Science.
More than 30,000 scientists from 177 countries have pledged to publish in, subscribe to, or edit or review only those scientific journals that have agreed to grant unrestricted free distribution rights within six months of initial publication.
Since the open letter was launched, some publishers have agreed to deposit their research publications in the National Institutes of Health's free, full-text digital archive, PubMed Central.
But despite this overwhelming show of support, the open letter hasn't made a significant dent in commercial publishers' pocketbooks since it was announced last April.
"Although the list of journals that provide open access is impressive and growing, it is not yet a large or diverse-enough collection to fully serve the needs of the authors who signed the open letter," Eisen said.
"I do not view this as a failure of the scientists who have signed the open letter, but rather as a failure of the publishing community to offer journals that provide open access while meeting the needs of scientist authors."
The current scientific publishing business model began at a time when the only effective way to distribute published works was in print journals. Only scientists who had access to well-stocked libraries or could afford subscriptions could get access to scientific literature.
Today, however, the sound economic basis of this model is gone, Eisen said. With electronic distribution, virtually all of the publishing costs are in producing the first, peer-reviewed, edited and formatted copy of an article.
"By far and away the most efficient and effective way to distribute scientific manuscripts is by electrons over the Internet," Eisen said.
Now, critics argue that a new economic publishing model is needed to further scientific progress.
"We believe that a new economic model for scientific publishing must be adopted, where the costs of publication should be viewed as the final, indispensable cost of doing research and should be paid by the institutions that support the research," Eisen said.
"The fact that the results of publicly funded research are owned by publishers, and not the public, is a scandal waiting to be given attention," Eisen said.
A number of journals have moved to make six-month or year-old content freely available on their own websites.
But critics say this effort is not enough to ensure that scientists have immediate, free access to any work they want.
"So long as the literature remains balkanized on thousands of websites, each with their own rules on access and use, this will never happen," Eisen said.
However, not everyone thinks that current business models should be changed. The topic has spurred intense debate among scientists, publishers and scientific societies who question whether open access initiatives may endanger the process of peer review and the survival of niche journals.
Many scientists who depend upon prestigious journals to support their livelihood are reluctant to veer from conventional publishing, even though they recognize flaws in the system.
"The stranglehold of conventional publishers on the scientific community is still quite strong," said Jan Velterop, publisher of BioMed Central.
BioMed Central is exploring several business models, including advertising revenue, charging a small one-time author fee, or charging for access to some added-value content while making all original research articles available free of charge.
Although there are no immediate plans to charge a processing fee for articles published in the Journal of Biology, supporters say that many authors will be willing to pay to reach the widest possible audience for their work.
"Once (scientists) see that they can get all the things that these established journals provide while also getting open access, they will be more than happy to pay the costs associated with publishing in JBiol and other journals," Eisen said.
